FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Neo-Conservatism: Valuable lessons from Professor Weigel

Neo-Conservatism: Valuable lessons from Professor Weigel

NOTE: TCK is not for a "recognition" by modernist Rome

George Weigel= Heretic

In a recent article for First Things,
George Weigel provided excellent insights into the neo-conservative
Catholic mind as he bemoaned the allegedly soon-to-occur regularization
of the Society of St. Pius X; claiming that doing so “would immeasurably
damage the New Evangelization.”
From his lips to God’s ears!

At this, let’s review some of the highlights of Professor Weigel’s masterclass on neo-conservatism.Lesson #1: Neo-conservatism leads to a darkened intellect
George Weigel looks at the half-a-century old “New Evangelization” –
with its empty seminaries, bankrupt dioceses, and pastorless parishes –
and insists that the good times must be allowed to roll on!
How is it that an otherwise intelligent man cannot see that this
little experiment known as the “New Evangelization” has been a massive
failure on every conceivable front?
The answer is simple; his view is informed almost exclusively, not by a sensusCatholicus, but rather by a sensus concilius,
and make no mistake, they are as different as night and day – the
former being founded in truth; the latter on a series of cleverly
disguised lies published on official Vatican II letterhead.
The result of having accepted the conciliar deception is a darkened
intellect that is no longer capable of recognizing things as they are;
to the point where that which is poisonous appears good for food. (Sound
familiar?)Lesson #2: Neo-conservatism requires hypocrisy
Weigel’s article demonstrates, far better than any so-called
“traditionalist” ever could, just how confused, conflicted and
inconsistent “conciliarists” such as himself truly are.
He writes:

“Helping those who have broken away from the Catholic Church come back into full communion is a noble endeavor.”

Right, as if the idea of “partial communion” is anything
other than a conciliar invention that grew directly out of the
ecumaniacal fervor that inspired the entire affair.
He continues:

“But such reconciliations cannot be
conducted as if they were the ecclesiastical equivalent of labor
negotiations: You give a bit here, we’ll give a bit there. For the only
Church unity worthy of the name is unity within the full symphony of
Catholic truth.”

Oh, this is rich!
Apparently it hasn’t occurred to Weigel that the text of Vatican
Council II that he treats as holy writ is precisely the product of just
such negotiations.
As Cardinal Walter “the serene theologian” Kasper acknowledged:

“In many places, [the Council Fathers]
had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the
majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed
to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge
potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either
direction.” (L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

Maybe I missed it, but I’m unaware of Weigel ever criticizing the
conciliar text for its failure to present “the full symphony of Catholic
truth” without compromise.Lesson #3: Neo-conservatism has a “rigidity” problem of its own
Far from criticizing the conciliar text, Weigel is undeterred in his support of it, writing:

“While the Lefebvrists’ complaints about
the post-Vatican II liturgy are often thought to be at the heart of
their schism, the more fundamental break-points involve the Council’s
teaching on the fundamental human right of religious freedom and the
Council’s embrace of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue—including the
conciliar affirmation that there are elements of truth and holiness in
other Christian communities, and indeed in non-Christian faiths.”

Here, Weigel shows just how “old school” he really is; insisting that
the SSPX is in schism even as those in Rome no longer do so. (This, I
suppose, is what passes for “tradition” in “New Evangelization”
circles.)
What’s more, Weigel knows that he is out of step with the Rome of today, and this is the cause of his angst.

“Now, according to Archbishop Guido
Pozzo, a senior Vatican official involved in discussions with the
Lefebvrists, it may be possible to heal the breach Archbishop Lefebvre
created by conceding that the teachings of Vatican II do not all have
the same doctrinal weight.

On this scenario, the Lefebvrists would
be given a pass on the Council’s affirmation of religious freedom,
ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue, and would return to full
communion through the mechanism of a “personal prelature,” the same
structure that governs Opus Dei.

This is a very, very bad idea.”

How did George Weigel – famed biographer and spiritual son of John
Paul the Great Ecumenist whose pontificate “struck deep roots in the
previously unknown, utterly new, awareness of the Church that came about
thanks to the Second Vatican Council” (cf RedemptorHominis 3) – end up at odds with the current Captains of Newchurch?
In truth, tension between successive generations of neo-conservative coniliarists was inevitable from day one.
You see, the conciliar religion is essentially another Protestant
sect (albeit a unique one), and a fundamental hallmark of Protestantism
is that its positions constantly evolve; at times, leaving certain of
their members behind to either pine away for the good ol’ days or to
form yet another branch.
George Weigel belongs to what we might call the “rigid”
neo-conservative branch; the members of which consider the text of the
Council to be tantamount to non-negotiable dogmatic formulae, which
brings us to the good professor’s next revelation.Lesson #4: Neo-conservatism treats the entirety of Vatican II as dogmatic
While they are wont, in their criticism of progressives, to repeat
after Cardinal Ratzinger who denounced those who would treat the Council
as a “super-dogma,” this is precisely what they themselves do.
Weigel writes:

“Vatican II did indeed speak of a
‘hierarchy of truths’ within the one Catholic and apostolic faith. But
that does not mean that some of what the Council taught is more-or-less
true (which would mean that some of Vatican II is more-or-less false, or
at least more-or-less dubious).”

As anyone whose roots run deeper than the 1960’s knows (i.e., those
who embrace the “Faith that comes to us from the Apostles” as opposed to
the “Playbook that comes to us from the Council”), some of Vatican II
is indeed more-or-less false!
For the Weigels of the world, however, there simply is no way
whatsoever that Vatican II taught anything that is demonstrably false,
and this in spite of their willingness to repeat after the popes (again,
in their criticism of progressives) that the Council was not an
infallible exercise; choosing as it did to refrain from defining
doctrine and remaining merely pastoral.
Weigel explains the neo-conservative position thus:

“To speak of a ‘hierarchy of truths’
simply means that some of the truths the Catholic Church teaches are
closer to the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ crucified and risen than
are other truths the Church teaches.

The Church teaches the truth of the
Virgin Birth and the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; both
doctrines are true, but the Virgin Birth is closer to the Paschal
Mystery than is the Immaculate Conception.

Similarly, Vatican II taught that divine
revelation is real and that religious freedom is a fundamental human
right. The reality of divine revelation is a truth closer to the center
of the faith than is the truth that religious freedom is a right of
persons that should be recognized in law; but both are true.”

NB: “Religious freedom” as proposed by the Council can be likened to the Immaculate Conception as solemnly declared, pronounced, and defined ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX!
Thank you, Professor Weigel, for this stunning admission!
Even if only inadvertently, he is telling us that neo-conservatism is built upon the belief that everything in the conciliar text is tantamount to non-negotiable dogmatic formulae.
Sure, some if it is “closer to the Paschal Mystery,” but at the end of the day, it’s all dogma.Lesson #5: Neo-conservatism is on the ecumenical train to nowhere
Professor Weigel has already established for us that the
neo-conservative considers the Council’s treatment of religious liberty
in Dignitatis Humanae to be similar in doctrinal weight to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined in Ineffabilis Deus.
If that isn’t reason enough to be grateful for his candor, Weigel
went on to admit that he and his ilk also rank the Council’s treatment
of ecumenism in Unitatis Redintegratio right up there as well!
He writes:

“To restore SSPX clergy to full communion
with Rome while letting them cross their fingers behind their backs on
religious freedom (and ecumenism) when they make the profession of faith
and take the oath of fidelity would, by a bizarre ultra-traditionalist
route, enshrine a ‘right to dissent’ within the Church. And that would
make for shipwreck.”

I suspect that if pressed, Weigel would seek to downplay the idea
that the conciliar text on religious liberty and ecumenism admits of no
more doubt than the infallibly defined dogma of the Immaculate
Conception, but he wrote what he wrote for a reason:It is this view of Vatican II that lies at the very heart of neo-conservatism.
For good measure, Weigel even graciously offered yet another analogy
that should help us, his students, come to understand the essence of
neo-conservatism:

“Such a ‘right’ of ‘faithful dissent’ has long been claimed by Catholic progressives, not least with respect to HumanaeVitae, Paul VI’s encyclical on the appropriate means of regulating fertility, and OrdinatioSacerdotalis, John Paul II’s apostolic letter reaffirming that the Church’s authority to ordain extends only to men.”

Get that?
As far as the esteemed Professor of Catholic Neo-Conservatism is
concerned, the conciliar novelties concerning religious liberty and
ecumenism can no more be opposed by a faithful Catholic than the
Church’s inability to ordain women to the priesthood.
In other words, he’s letting us know that he and his kind believe
that “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) who take seriously the doctrines
of the faith as consistently proposed by popes and councils past, over the course of many centuries, are no better than a bunch of lesbians in clerical Halloween consumes!
My friends, we all owe a debt of gratitude (if not tuition) to George
Weigel for teaching us everything we need to know about the true nature
of Catholic neo-conservatism:
It’s unrealistic, hypocritical, rigid, dogmatic and ecumenical.
Oh, yeah, and ultimately Protestant.

DAILY NEWS- Scroll Thru The Latest News

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

TRADCATKNIGHT FORUM

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."